AUR web interface

Tasklist

FS#2272 - Package added as TU, maintainer listed as "None"

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Link Dupont (link) - Thursday, 24 February 2005, 02:19 GMT
Last edited by Paul Mattal (paul) - Sunday, 24 April 2005, 01:30 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Backend
Status Closed
Assigned To Paul Mattal (paul)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 1.0
Due in Version 2.0.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

I added a package via CVS & tupkg, and when it showed up in the package list, its "maintainer" column is marked as "None". When I checked it & clicked "Adopt Packages", it marked the package as my own, but still didn't update the "maintainer" column.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Paul Mattal (paul)
Friday, 10 June 2005, 23:13 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Comment by Link Dupont (link) - Thursday, 24 February 2005, 02:50 GMT
This seems to be a duplicate of http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details&id=2269
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Thursday, 24 February 2005, 21:03 GMT
Link, which package is this happening for?
Comment by Link Dupont (link) - Friday, 25 February 2005, 01:34 GMT
revelation is one I added via CVS, then "adopted" from the list. Shouldn't packages we add via CVS automatically become packages we (as the TU) own?
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Monday, 07 March 2005, 04:21 GMT
this is a tricky problem because of the system architecture; it's actually quite hard to do; I will put it on the plate for v2.0
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Sunday, 24 April 2005, 01:32 GMT
To the extent that this bug is about not being able to adopt a package you've uploaded, I should have fixed this. Can you confirm that you haven't had any more trouble with this since the launch?

I also think that starting out the TUR-uploaded package as an orphan isn't so bad, assuming you can correctly adopt it! This is the way things work in the real dev system, too.

Let me know what you think.
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Friday, 10 June 2005, 11:36 GMT
Actually, thinking more about this, I've decided it's not really what we want. I actually like the explicit step of adopting in the Web interface.

Sometimes the user who uploads the binary package might not be the one who is to maintain the package. I wouldn't want to lock that package into that maintainer solely by virtue of the fact that he uploaded the package. With TUs, people often cover packages for one another. Even the first time, someone might upload the package as a different user than the one who plans to maintain it.

Other thoughts?
Comment by Link Dupont (link) - Friday, 10 June 2005, 21:10 GMT
Yea, that makes sense. It seems to be working fine as is. I don't think locking down uploading only to the "maintainer" or initial uploader is a good idea, but when a new package is uploaded for the first time, it would seem logical to me to assign the uploader as the maintainer. Why else would he or she be uploading this package then? I for one probably would never upload a package without intention of maintaining it.
So I guess the question is: on an initial package, should the uploader/maintainer explicitly _adopt_ a package they've uploaded or explicitly _orphan_ a package they've uploaded.
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Friday, 10 June 2005, 21:46 GMT
I do see the point. However, given how hard it is to do (we don't maintain any state between when the package is uploaded and the time the auto script adds it to the repo), and the fact that there's at least some question as to which is preferable, I'm going to go with the one that is easier. ;)

- P

Loading...